Philosophy: of news?

That’s right, ‘Philosophy of News’. Today I sat in on a discussion by Matt Gibson, publisher of The Independent and Calendar Editor and Writer Jason Wiener of the issues of philosophy in the news as both a basis of media principles and in commentary by philosophers as experts in stories.

The discussion was a bit wavering at first, with Matt Gibson trying to lay out the principles of his own publishing philosophy, which seem to revolve around the admittedly problematic theme of pluralism. He characterized himself (and the paper) as an ‘influence peddler’, attracting readers and selling influence to advertisers, and seemed to wonder out loud if we had any suggestions about how such ‘influence peddling’ might be best used. Concerning journalism, he said he avoids ‘seeking justice’ or ‘Truth’ in favor of ‘validating perspectives’ and ‘accuracy’. This, he argues, allows readers to expand their own notions of what constitutes the ‘Good Life’. Matt admitted that he wasn’t strong in philosophy and encouraged discussion from the audience to help him explicate and evaluate his otherwise clouded values.

Jason Weiner discussed reporting as essentially non-objective. In addition to most reporters seeing themselves as seeking Truth and Justice, every reporter has to get into a story with an angle, and it is that angle that makes us as readers care about it. Jason, a recent graduate of the University of Montana Philosophy MA program, stated that philosophy is useful in finding an angle, a ‘thread between otherwise disparate events.’ He also discussed the difficulty of a new journalist, finding an interesting angle in a story, but then discovering that what he saw as so interesting was not so important to the subjects of the story, his interviews going off in a wholly different direction. In addition to being forced to ‘follow’ stories wherever the subjects lead them, reporters don’t have unlimited space, and as such there isn’t a lot of room for philosophy in the news.

Ross Best, a ‘student’ in the audience berated (gently) Matt Gibson for his apparent failure to take a normative position, a failure which has led to (or come from) much of the commercialization and hence deterioration of media in recent years. But Ross did say Matt and the Independent do carry a normative message, even if it isn’t so explicitly stated, and should take the position of a ‘trustee of the people… a kind of public servant [as the owners] of the New York Times have been encouraged to think about their role…’ Matt did his best to address this, but didn’t seem to get it so much, referring to a ‘crass conversation’ he had just shared with Jason about the reasons for choosing stories, and stumbling back to the fact that sometimes they don’t get it right, and hence the importance of pluralism.

It went on from there in similar fashion, a few good questions, and decent answers (I’ve given presentations and know that giving clear answers, off the cuff, is very difficult). Dr. Borgmann came in with an interesting comment though, citing a story in the New York Times about a new measure for happiness coming from the tiny Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan. The story follows something Dr. Borgmann has had an eye on for some years now: the increasing investigation into ‘happiness’ by scientists who are showing that most of what Americans take to constitute the happy life are just dead wrong: more money, objective health, education, race, and sunshine all did little or nothing to affect happiness (from Martin Seligman’s book “Authentic Happiness“). Seligman also shows that while the US has the top consuming power in the world, we fall behind several countries when asked about happiness.

It’s tricky science (as is any ‘social’ science) but it does add fuel to the fire behind those of us who see contemporary society in a deeply damaging state. Dr. Borgmann likened it to the rise of Environmentalism in the ’50s and ’60s, which is ‘commonplace today’, and Feminism in the same decades. In that time, he says, male chauvinism was just getting jabs from what seemed like radicals. Today enlightened young men such as myself see Feminism and Environmentalism as great advances in our society (excessive at times, but overall beneficial), and maybe in thirty years ‘Happinessism‘ will be common stock in the vocabularies of all Americans (even if the right wing still dismisses it).

We can hope. And we can also hope that philosophy makes its way into news; or in fact go further than it already has.